I have had this recurring thought as I watch the ongoing contest between McCain and Obama.
Listen to Obama, and you hear him talk in terms of what he "would do" or "can do" and generally of "hope" and so on.
When you hear his supporters, they emphasize feeling excited about him, his demeanor, his ability to speak effectively, and so on.
This is not to say he does not have policy proposals and ideas - he certainly does and we have been discussing these.
But when it comes to actual accomplishments, the cupboard seems stunningly bare.
So as I was scanning a few blogs, this segment on "Riehl World View" stood out to me. He's talking about his impression from the recent 60 Minutes Obama interview:
I've heard Obama's answer in any number of interviews I've conducted over the years and always from people I eventually didn't hire. It was, "I'm the guy (or gal) who can ..." It was not, I'm the guy who did.
Obama's entreaty was along the lines of I'm the guy who can get people who strongly disagree in a room and mediate to find some common ground. What was totally lacking in Obama's answer was, I'm the guy who did ... much of anything, for that matter.
Some people, likely driven by ego, have a sort of magical view of themselves. They believe that if they just get the chance they know they are the right person to make certain things happen, to make a difference somehow. Yet, at every step of their lives they mostly avoid any opportunity to prove the point. Just think about Obama's argument juxtaposed to John McCain.
When has Obama ever gotten people who "almost violently" disagreed politically into a room to reach consensus? He certainly never did it in the US Senate, though he might have had he ever shown up as opposed to immediately launching his Presidential bid.
Were there people who disagreed when Obama was state Senator back in Illinois? Sure, most likely about how much to raise taxes, how much to regulate - absolutely nothing as compared to what he would find as President in Washington, DC.
As best I can tell, in role after role when Obama had a chance to step up and actually lead, he voted present and preserved his political ambition over everything else.
Disagree with him or not, cantankerous as he might be, John McCain is a man who has done that very thing. He doesn't live in some magical world where he simply believes he can. Yes, he has angered the Right because of McCain - Feingold, McCain - Kennedy, etc. But isn't that the proof in the pudding of someone who can get people who disagree in a room and bring about some consensus? I'd argue it is."
That is the point I keep coming back to. Where are the actual examples in Obama's past that show he can do what he claims? Again, there is a reason Barak is ranked as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. To me, it suggests a man who is not willing to break with the liberal line, not willing to challenge the status quo of his world (politically, the liberal world). You can argue that some of his words/speeches give cautious respect to the "other side" but when push comes to shove, has he ever bucked liberalism and his party? Has he really led vastly divergent views to a consensus? Has he ever really accomplished significant reform or major legislative accomplishments?
What does this say about a man who would be President of the United States?
No comments:
Post a Comment